Putin 3.0

In the news...Putin is sworn into his third term as President, amid continuing protests.

'Freedom – it is a unique feeling, which every person understands differently. You know, of course, there is always an element of objectivity in freedom, but generally it is just our own experiences’. If you are thinking I’m quoting Kant, you’re wrong. This is a line from President Medvedev’s last interview that he gave to five TV channels at once. He clearly wanted to be heard. Also, quite clearly, the irony of his philosophising was not lost on the thousands of protestors who came out on May 6 to contest the government’s usurpation of their freedom and right to vote - fairly, protest – peacefully, and think - differently. 

Again, it is hard to tell just how many people participated. The Moscow police place the figure at 8,000, while the organisers claim the ‘March of Millions’ as the protest was officially called, was not smaller than the election fraud rallies that gathered anywhere between 130,000 and 200,000. Ironically, (yes, again – there’s a lot of that today) the organisers filed for permission for 5,000 demonstrators with the city’s authorities. There have been detractions from the march, some from well-known figures, as they faced increasing futility of raging against the machine - so it is not just the government that likes to pretend.

Now, if the number of those in the opposition is debated, the number of police and special forces (OMON) shocked even the well-seasoned commentators. The police line blocking the way to the Kremlin looked like a fight scene straight out of Star Wars. Metal detectors blocked entrance to the main square where protests were meant to be held. However, everything was more or less peaceful when the march started. One journalist said a friend had brought his toddler along, as indeed have others, indicating that the plan was peaceful. Although it is still not quite clear how the clashes started – with protestors trying to break through the police line to get to the Kremlin, or with the police preventing the organisers from entering the main square – a large part of participants became isolated by the ‘Udarnik’ (‘hard-hitter’, nonetheless) cinema and things went awry.

There are numerous videos of police brutality, with OMON using batons to beat protestors unconscious, then leaving them on the ground. These images echo the footage that shocked the world in 2010, when Aleksandr Lukashenko – ‘Europe’s Last Dictator’, put down protests following a rigged election in Belarus. The government side (represented on Channel 1 news) claimed protestors were throwing bits of asphalt at them and, when these endangered the ‘passers-by’, they intervened. Maybe someone did actually decide to go for a walk in the middle of a rally, maybe…It was obvious that things got out of hand, with the media reporting tear gas being used – while state TV has OMON claiming it were fireworks lit by protestors to pass off as tear gas. Isn’t it a useful word, ‘allegedly’? In a moment of sweet revenge, the NTV van got showered with empty bottles and its tires were slashed – an answer to the shocking propaganda film ‘Anatomy of Protest’ the network aired right after the elections, ‘disclosing’ the protestors as fakes, ‘provocators’ etc. Having seen the film, and not condoning violence in the slightest, I think the slashed tires were totally deserved.

The Western media, even this morning, reported 120-150 detained protestors. I was wondering where they got the numbers from as even Channel 1 ran a figure of 250 last night, which it upgraded to 436 today. (The opposition claims 570 arrests). Twenty people were injured, along with twenty-nine police officers. (One of the OMON was interviewed on Channel 1, the reporter apologising for the man’s ‘slow speech’ as he had sustained a head injury. There seemed to be nothing wrong with the man. He was just struggling to string together a publishable sentence.) There have been no reports of deaths, aside from a photographer who fell to his death trying to get a better shot of the march. In an interview on TV Rain, Putin’s spokesman said the police were ‘too soft’. As Novaya Gezeta’s Yulia Latinina points out, people who have used less soft measures have had their foreign accounts frozen.

But, despite all these goings on, Putin was sworn into his third term this noon, in a ludicrously pompous ceremony performed for the first time at the Kremlin by no other but Ivan the Terrible himself. (I got this bit of trivia from Channel 1, so I apologise if it is misinformation, but I couldn’t resist pointing out the gaff.) There were Royal Guards, standing ovations, and a lot, a lot of gold. There were some very unexpected guests. For one, his wife, who Putin was widely rumoured to have divorced during his second term, and who has since been confined in wither a mental institution, a monastery, or both. (I remember catching the article about the divorce on the Washington Post website – the only official source I found carrying the information, only to discover it deleted an hour later.) His mistress – the former gymnast Alina Kabayeva, the mother of at least one of his children, was also photographed outside the Kremlin, though it is not clear from the official footage whether she was at the ceremony. Their affair, conducted in multi-million mansions throughout the country, is shrouded in secrecy. And though everyone expected Berlusconi to be there, Gorbachev was the real surprise. Does anyone remember him saying that Putin ‘castrated’ Russian democracy? Well, I don’t know what he was thinking. But he did not look happy, I can tell you that. The banquet that followed cost a $1million, according to Russia Today. The proceedings have been blessed by Archbishop of Russia Cyrill, who had been awarded a prestigious state medal last year – along with the head of the election committee Churov and the hated and corrupt head of the police, Nurgaliev. Pretty cosy, isn’t it?

And speaking of cosy: the first thing Putin did as President, aside from promising monetary benefits to World War II veterans (the elderly handful always comes in handy when public images need a lift) was to suggest Dmitry Medvedev for the position of Prime Minister. In case someone was wondering who might take over Putin’s old job, the new President did not even skip a beat on this one. And then, after yet another self-satisfied smirk, the President donned on his ice skates and scored the winning penalty in a hockey game against Russia’s Legends Team, a feat even less likely than Boris Johnson winning a cycle race against Team GB.

While the footage of the presidential journey to the Kremlin saw eerily deserted streets, there were more protests today throughout the city with around 300 detained and people were still being arrested while I was finishing researching this piece. Alexei Navalny, Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Udaltsov – the organisers of the March of Millions, were released today and are due to pay either a 1,000 roubles (20GBP) or spend 15 days in prison. I don’t know, what would you do?

A number of opposition media, such as TV Rain and Slon.ru reported hacking attempts to bring down their sites yesterday. Today, while researching, the Echo Moscow website was suspended. Meanwhile, Sunday saw pro-Putin rallies as well as the dress rehearsal of the May 9 Victory Day parade, with the usually impressive show of military force. The way things are going, the administration should have scheduled the inauguration for the 9^th as well – to celebrate the government’s victory over freedom. But maybe that’s too subjective of me to say. 

Under Pressure

In the news...a teacher faces trial and a fine following her disclosure of election fraud. 

Following the two bouts of elections in December and March, the Russian press exploded with allegations of widespread fraud, supported by detailed witness reports, scanned documents and video evidence. Even if some of these were, as the pro-government supporters like to call it, ‘provocations’ from the side of the opposition, the scope of complaints is so great, that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Putin did not win the alleged 63.6%. There is also no doubt that he would not have won fairly in any case, but it’s the arrogance of the cheating that infuriates. The press has been having a field month filing more and more witness reports and allegations, to the point of tedium. After all, what did they expect exactly? But the case of a 53 year-old teacher from St. Petersburg facing trial for her disclosure of pressure to defraud the election committee stands out in its callousness and, most of all, its humble heroism.

On January 27, 2012, Novaya Gazeta ran a report uncovering attempts to coerce St. Petersburg high-school teachers – members of the election committee – to ‘do everything possible for the victory of the United Russia party’ during the December Parliamentary elections. An anonymous teacher claimed in an interview that the head of the local education department, Natalia Nazarova, urged the congregation to hold back monitors, stuff pre-marked ballots and, as she added in a later interview, to forge signatures of those who did not come to vote so that the number of votes would match attendance figures. They were offered 70,000 roubles to carry this out – about 1,500GBP – an enormous sum for Russian teachers, who have one of the lowest salaries in the country. Tatiana Ivanova, head teacher with 30 years experience refused the generous offer and contacted the press instead. ‘To just upturn your entire life in one go – that was very difficult. But it would be much harder to live with the feeling of dirt that we were smeared with,’ she says. She was the only head of an election committee who spoke up – in the whole country.

Her story is, in itself, not surprising. The complained filed by Natalia Nazarova, demanding 100,000 roubles in moral damages for her ruined reputation is much more so. First of all, judging by the sum, her reputation wasn’t too badly bruised. Secondly, as Lyudmila Rybina – the Novaya Gazeta journalist charged alongside Mrs. Ivanova – suggests, the initial report was anonymous, so when the charge included not only the author of the article, but named Mrs. Ivanova, it rather suggests that the plaintiff recognised the details of the story, thereby confirming it as true. On April 18^th, 2012 a third preliminary hearing was held in St.Petersburg, with another scheduled for April 26^th.

So far, Mrs. Ivanova was forced to resign from her position, abandoning her senior class in the middle of the school year. The school director tried to resist the pressure, but when Natalia Nazarova threatened to open a corruption case against the school, based on the fact that Mrs. Ivanova’s son is married to one of the teachers and sometimes gets small contracts to repair equipment, Mrs. Ivanova understood that there was no point resisting. There has been a popular Internet campaign in her support, the hash tag with her name actually topping Twitter on the day of the trial; the parents of her senior class have filed a complained with the court, and there have even been a drive to raise money. Her colleagues, however, have abandoned her – ‘like the plague’, she says. In an interview on TV Rain, she thanked her internet supporters, saying that their kind word and even poetry helped her through enormously. But, despite many job offers, she says she is too tired to continue teaching. ‘The worst thing is, I lost faith’ she says. ‘In justice. In truth. In decency.’

In 2010, Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting article for The New Yorker, talking about the inability of the social networking sites to will a realistic social movement. Back then I thought he had a point, but wasn’t convinced. This case, however, sadly supports his gloomy argument. What use is it that #tatianaivanova trended in first place all over Russia? Lyudmila Rybina counted about 50 people protesting outside the court. That’s it?

Over the last few days, aside from this hearing, six people, including a ten-year old boy, were detained following a ‘photo-walk’ – a peaceful protest in which people carried photographs taken during election fraud protests – works of art, without any added words. A Moscow court has just extended custody for the punk group Pussy Riot, detained in February following a punk-prayer staged in a Moscow church calling on the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin. One of the singers has been complaining of lack of medical treatment, which she would now have to forgo until June 24^th in the best-case scenario. The court official explain the decision to hold the three girls, all in their early twenties, who now face up to seven years in prison on aggravated hooliganism charges, ‘for their own safety’, as they might become subject of revenge. Around 20 people were arrested after protesting the decision outside the court. Earlier in April, Sergey Kondrashov, a Saint Petersburg lawyer, was arrested for holding up a banner that protested the new anti-gay laws: “A dear family friend is lesbian. My wife and I love and respect her … and her family is just as equal as ours."  He has been detained for 15 days, even though the law only presupposes a fine.

These are just a few examples. This trend of vindictive retribution against those who tried to stand up against the government machine is not very promising, especially since Putin, known for his grudges, has not yet officially taken over.

When her pupils asked Tatiana Ivanova about how they are supposed to go on living like this, she said, ‘don’t let anyone bring you down to your knees, otherwise you’ll spend your whole life on your knees’. A brave woman, who does not think herself a hero – just a ‘normal person’, is very right about that. And she lives by her beliefs, which is even more admirable. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the thousands, hundreds of thousands people, sitting in front of their computers, doing absolutely nothing to either help her, or the situation. Because in their, or shall I say our case, (after all, what have I done?) there is currently no difference between the backside on which we idly sit, and our knees.

Save Our Souls

In the news...St. Petersburg passes a law that prohibits dissemination of propaganda on homosexuality and places it in the same category as paedophilia.

A Russian actress, Faina Ranevskya, legendary for her piercing sense of humour, has once remarked on the subject of totalitarian states that ‘woeful is that country where one in control his own ass’. Pun fully intended, Russia’s relationship with homosexuality has been fraught not only in the Soviet times, when Stalin introduced Article 121 that presupposed up to five years in prison for sodomy but also, most recently, when gay pride parades have been either prohibited, or assaulted by both the police and anti-gay activists. I have written on this subject before, disgusted and appalled by the ignorance and sheer horror of some of the social mis-and preconceptions about gay people in Russia. But as recently as this month, a new shocking development has taken place: on April 7^th, 2012 the mayor of St. Petersburg has approved a law that prohibits public propaganda of homosexuality – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender AND paedophilia – among children and your adults.

The law punishes any ‘action of direct and lawless dissemination through publically accessible means of information’ which can ‘harm the health, moral and spiritual development of young people’, quotes the daily Kommersant. So far the punishment implies a 5,000 rouble (just over 100GPB) fine for individuals, 50,000 for officials and from 250,000-500,000 (up to 10,500GBP) for judicial figures. Paedophilia is more expensive: 500,000-1,000,000 (about 20,000GBP) for the top bracket. But apart from a small monetary difference, the authors did not seem to notice that they coupled one of the most heinous crimes known to man with homosexuality. So far, this law is active in three Russian cities, St. Petersburg being the largest, but as of March 29^th a petition has been presented to the state Duma (Russian parliament) demanding universal application. Proponents of the litigation insist that it is not aimed at gay individuals – after all, there is nothing wrong with being gay. The idea is to prevent incitement to join their (presumably) unholy ranks by the vulnerable, sexually-undecided teenagers. Because clearly in a country almost wholly dependent on high oil prices for survival, a failing educational system, a virtually non-existent production industry and lack of health care, an individual sexual preference is what really matters.

To be fair on the government, it is faced with low birth rates and a plummeting demographic, and has already issued monetary incentives for couples to marry and have children. Stalin’s 1934 decree was issued in response to very similar reports. The country needs fresh blood, and condoning homosexuality is not the way to get there. In the words of Vitaly Milonov, a deputy behind the litigation, he has nothing whatsoever against gays: he has gay friends, listens to Elton John (who in Russia doesn’t?) – but he just cannot accept it as a social norm. He cites a dubious statistic: 50% of men in Berlin have had at least one sexual encounter, which is unprecedented. This experimentation is not bad in itself - but only if it happens ONCE. Because - are you ready for this? – ‘according to criminologists who deal with serial killers and homosexuals crimes, after a second or third contact with a partner of the same sex, the human psyche changes so much that he become gay.’ So to hell with all the medical evidence: in Russia, homosexuality is like heroin – try it more than once, and you’re hooked. And in a country with one of the world’s highest consumption of opiates in the world, they should know.

Now, Russia media – particularly television, is full of calls to protect our children. Talk shows aimed at housewives are abundant on every channel, filled with blood-chilling stories of child abuse and brutal murders. And these are the reported cases, concerning heterosexual families, which make Britain’s Baby P. scandal look tame. In light of this social disintegration, caused increasingly by drugs and alcohol, the ‘Historical Process’ panel talk show aired on Russia1 on April 4 to discuss the propaganda laws is a shocking example of blindness, ignorance and – to me – pure toxic evil.

The show’s host, Dmitry Kiselev, a (previously) well-respected journalist, opened the discussion with the declaration that the aims by the gay and lesbian community to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, along with protests from Westerners like Madonna, are neither ‘hot nor cold’: he says that it is not enough to fine people for homosexual propaganda among youngsters. ‘We must prohibit them from donating blood, sperm and their hearts – in a case of a traffic accident – must be buried in the ground, or burned as unfit for continuation of someone else’s life’. A middle-aged woman in the background shrugs, and applause fills the studio. There seems nothing else to say after this – after all, these word would be condemned as incitement to hatred anywhere this side of the commonsensical. But there are another 90 nauseating minutes left.

‘I empathise with homosexuals,’ declares Kiselev. ‘I do not wish such a fate upon my sons and daughters’. He goes on to cite Western sources on the subject: 78% of homosexual men feel themselves less happy than his heterosexual counterparts, 75% of lesbians experience depression and require psychological help, homosexuals are six times more likely to attempt suicide – as he says, ‘not everything is healthy or happy there’. He goes on to suggest that an average gay man has between a hundred and five hundred sexual partners, while between 10-15% have over a 1,000 and that many of these encounter take place with strangers…in the dark. Only 2% exercise their right to civil partnership in Holland – so the desire for family amongst gays is a myth. And, most importantly, a study conducted in countries with high gender equality, that psychological problems experienced by homosexuals are internal, rather than socially affected – their persecution is not the issue. Then he goes on to praise the FDA ban on gay blood, sperm and donor donation from MSM – ‘men who have sex with men’ – his favourite point.

There is no use delving into the medical accuracy of these claims. It is well known that psychological studies are usually contested and there are many ways of looking at the same statistic that produces very different conclusions. Anyway. Indeed, the ban on blood donations exists – in a number of countries including Britain, America and Canada (where a ban on MSM organ donation has just been introduced in 2008). What he does not mention, is that the FDA and the British Blood Service have been debating repealing this law, as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C tests become faster and more reliable. This law dates back to the 1980s, where homosexual men represented a high-risk group – understandably so. According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, there have been documented cases of contracting HIV through a transplant – four in Chicago as recently as 2007. But my question, and one that is asked by many gay rights activists is this: how are men in committed relationships less trustworthy than their promiscuous heterosexual counterparts? While the authorities debate these issues, and have yet not voted for the lifting of the ban, it is up to the society to take stock of its values and weigh individual actions, not groups. But perhaps these are just my Western liberal notions that, as Deputy Milonov thinks, are aimed at destroying universal human values.

The part that makes me cringe most is the one about the hearts. Kiselev goes on and on about how in America these are burned or buried as unfit for transplants. Apparently, this is on the FDA website. I looked. All I could find was a Donor Screening section on the FDA website, which states that 90% of donors are immediately rejected ‘up-front’ as ‘unsuitable’. Maybe my internet research skills are poor, but all I could find when I typed in ‘gay organs destroyed’ into Google, was a string of anti-gay anathema that I was not willing to explore. This attitude that puts gays on the same platform as vampires, whose very essence must be destroyed to protect the human race, is so vile and ludicrous, that it seems only superfluous to write about. It would have been, had this programme not been broadcast on prime time television.

In his final remarks, the host brings up the violent, cruel world of the gay community – the death of the advisor to President Sarkozy, Richard Descoings in a hotel in New York being the most recent example. He was found dead, naked, with drugs and alcohol in the room, and he was gay. But what about the violence and cruelty of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not that long ago, and not very far away? There is a bar that shows number of people calling or texting their support for either side. At the end of the show, Kiselev and his ‘witnesses’ have 34,970 votes. The other side, represented by famous film directors, journalists and historians, earned a meagre 7,577. Their argument that this law, aside from its hateful undertones of discrimination, factually de-criminalises paedophilia by placing a relative small fine on it advertising that fills that Russian internet, fell on deaf ears.

What makes this whole story so repugnant, is the fact that all the statistics of gay repression are cited not in sympathy or calls for change. No. They are used to urge the society to protect its children from a horrible fate, a disease – an appellation. The actual litigation is much milder in nature than the underlying sentiments, which is the horrifying thought. Unfortunately, it is not limited to Russia. The Rolling Stone recently carried an article about Minnesota ‘No Homo Promo’ laws that prohibited teachers from talking about homosexuality in any form in public – a confusing decree that led to teachers being forced to ignore gay children being bullied, and let to a spike in teenage suicides. The human being in me, looking around at a world plagued by war, poverty, famine, disease and environmental issues, takes all this very personally. This litigation is not a case for morality, justice or even plain sexual health safety. This is a case for ignorance coupled with cruelty and disregard for what makes us people – people whose souls, and not whose backsides, need saving.

Echo of Freedom

In the news...editor-in-chief of the main opposition radio station Echo Moscow is due to leave the board of directors in an untimely re-shuffle and other encroachments on the free press prior to the March elections.

Alexei Venediktov – the editor-in-chief of the radio station Echo Moscow – is a bit of a phenomenon or, as some might say, a lucky bastard. Despite having been under the control of Gazprom-Media group (a subsidiary of the oil giant closely connected with the Kremlin) for the past eleven years, Echo managed not only to remain the focal point of opposition broadcasting, but to maintain its reputation as an independent source of political analysis – perhaps too independent. At a meeting with the editors-in-chief of the major media outlets on January 18^th, Vladimir Putin accused Echo’s journalists of undermining Russian national interests by playing into the hands of Western critics and, wait for it, ‘pouring diarrhoea over me, day and night’. Always one for a strong word, the Prime Minister. A month later, the news of restructuring of Echo’s board of directors well ahead of schedule, with Venediktov and his assistant editor Vladimir Varfolomeev due to resign, makes drawing a political connection simply irresistible.

In an interview published by the daily Kommersant, Venediktov calls the situation a pirate’s ‘black mark’ – a psychological pressure on the station, and him specifically. Since the purchase by Gazprom Media in 2001, none of board members held a control package, dividing representation as four members from Gazprom, three Echo Moscow shareholders and two independent directors. But, as Gazprom Media holds the control package of shares on the market, it now insists this be represented in the boardroom. So, Venediktov will leave the board voluntarily, to prevent the loss of independent directors, making the representation five-two-two. The pro-government sources like to point out this voluntary resignation, while everyone else seems to think he had no other choice but to leave or ‘be resigned’. What immediately raises a few eyebrows is the fact that both new independent directors studied law in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad), one of them taking the same course as Dmitry Medvedev, although there are no suggestions of any close affiliation. They were suggested for this position because they have no connection to Gazprom Media, Gazprombank, Gazprom itself – or Echo Moscow for that matter, but hardly anyone doubts the fact that they will be dependently responsible to either the President or the Prime Minister – who, after the March 4^th election, will become the same person, and one who is pretty damn angry at the radio station and particularly its unruly captain.

Interestingly, Venediktov himself does not think Putin gave the order for the re-shuffle, doubting the timeline: the suggestion to bring the election of the board forward from July to March came in December. The public scolding happened in January. There is no direct link, he claims. But surely Gazprom Media was aware of the dissatisfaction with the editorial board in the Kremlin before Putin’s outburst – especially following the harsh criticism of the December parliamentary elections. Perhaps, as Venediktov claims, there was no direct order ‘to kill’ (or ‘drown’ – a untranslatable Russian mix between the two). But now Gazprom Media is directly responsible for his position, as according to the station’s policy a board majority can dismiss the editor-in-chief. The problem is, though, that the new editor has to be nominated either by a share-holder with no less than 3% equity or by five members of the journalistic staff. Then, the candidate has to be supported by no less than 50% of the workforce, who have been at the station for no less than three months. To change this directive, 75% of shareholders’ votes are necessary, and Gazprom currently owns 66% - meaning that it can only change the law with the help of the staff. This makes firing Venediktov a little easier, but replacing him almost impossible. It is hardly likely that many of the journalists, if any at all, will be willing to betray the man who has become a icon of free speech and the fight for democracy in a state which has been continuously antagonistic to both.

Of course there are other explanations for the shake-up. Kommersant suggests it might have to do with Gazprom Media’s dissatisfaction with the advertising policy at Echo, which has so far failed to fully exploit its potential. Another slant is that the attack is directed at the general director of Gazprom Media itself – Nikolai Senkevich. Maybe. Anything is possible. But there has been a number of recent developments that draws focus to the political aspect. December 13^th, 2010 saw the firing of the general director of Kommerstant holding corporation as well as the editor-in-chief of Kommersant Vlast’ (power) following the publication of an election ballot with words ‘Putin, go fuck yourself’ scribbled in red across it on the front page. A potent anti election-fraud statement - and so the paper paid its price. On February 16^th, 2011, within days of the announcement of restructuring at Echo, Mosskovskiy Komsomolets reported a proposed litigation that will allow the Russian internet registration administrator, Ru-Center to shut down any website it considers harmful or unlawful within a secondary .ru domain – so msk.ru, org.ru, which fall directly under its domain. On the same day, the district attorney’s office opened a case against an independent opposition TV station Dojd’ (‘rain’), investigating the origin of funds used for its broadcasting of the ‘For Fair Elections’ protests in December and January. Again, on the same day, Venediktiov was called into the DA’s office to discuss the complaint made by one of the listeners concerning the fact that the station’s policy disallows journalists from being members of political parties. (Apparently, the plaintiff has been rejected from a position at Echo as he was an active member of the opposition Party, Yabloko.)

Gone are the days when SWAT teams with faces covered in black masks used to storm the offices of unwanted media organisations. The independent network NTV was famously subjected to what has become known as ‘Maski-show’ in 2001 – prior to its ‘purchase’ by Gazprom Media. Now the tactic seems to be legal reshuffling and manipulation. Some might think that it’s progress. However, it seems that while previously the government still needed to use obscene force to scare and intimidate into submission, now the unlawful practices have become so cemented in Russia’s political canopy, that just a small nudge from Putin is enough to suggest that this bucket of ‘diarrhoea’ you are holding over his head is about to be tipped over you. Anytime now.

We'll freeze, but we won't forgive!

In the news...rallies against election fraud take place in Moscow.

Snow is on the news in Britain, which is once again paralised by the cold. With its love of talking about the weather, climatic conditions predictably colour the UK media’s treatment of Russia’s anti-election fraud protests, with every commentator pointing out that people are not afraid to leave their homes in minus 20. Indeed, ‘We’ll freeze, but we won’t forgive!’ is one of the many witty slogans seen at the Moscow protests yesterday. But February 4, 2012 was not a day to be proud of being Russian. Defying the consensus of the international community, including the Arab League, Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution that condemns President Bashar Al-Assad’s continued use of force against anti-government protestors. The vote took place on an understandably inconvenient day: thousands of Russians came out to demonstrate against what they consider to be rigged parliamentary elections and to demand a fair representation in the upcoming presidential vote on March 4^th this year.

As was expected, the state Channel 1 opened the February 4^th news bulletin with reports of the pro-Putin rally that took place along the anti-government protests. Well aware of the cynical suggestions voiced by most Western and opposition commentators that the demonstrators were either forced or paid to attend, people were interviewed countering the accusation. Putin himself claimed smilingly that it is impossible to pay 130,000 or 190,000 people to attend. Smug? Yes. But he’s got a point. Despite the fact that the government is becoming increasingly unpopular, it has a wide support base and Russia is genuinely split over Putin’s impeding presidency.

Russia’s liberal media, however, widely report on the non-committal atmosphere at the pro-Putin rally, with confirmed instances of incitements both monetary and alcoholic. Both Novaya Gazeta and Moscow Komsomolets emphasized a solemn attitude in the crowd, with people not paying any attention to the fiery, and at times manic speeches from the stage. Referring to the Ukrainian revolution of 2004, the pro-government journalist Aleksandr Prohanov bellowed: ‘Orange is the colour of piss on the snow!’ People shuffled silently, many of them drinking excessively to fight the -20 degree freeze. ‘Don’t photograph, please, or my pupils will see. This was not my choice’ Novaya Gazeta reports a teacher pleading.

One of Novaya’s leading journalists, Yulia Latinina, has controversially termed the government supporters ‘anchovies’ – marinated in the rich brew of government propaganda, unmoving in their barrels. This comparison is perhaps extreme, but one cannot underestimate the unwillingness of many Russians to demand change, which is potentially disruptive and promises no certain future. After all, few remember the lawless, economically chaotic Wild West years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union with much affection. But if her claims that most pro-Putin demonstrators were bussed in from outside Moscow are even partially true, it not only shows the government’s determination to misrepresent public opinion on a massive scale, but also demonstrates the mainstream media’s complete abnegation of its journalistic ethos. Hello, Democracy – maybe lunch sometime?

It is impossible to determine the number of protesters at either rally, as the suggested figures say more about the hopes of the sources quoting them rather than the reality. According to the BBC, the official figures number the protesters as low as 23,000, while claiming that it seemed more like the numerous December rally that attracted 120,000. The leading Moscow daily, Kommerstant, quotes the official figures at 33-34,000 for the opposition and 138,000 for Putin’s supporters, while unofficial figures are given at 120,000 and 35,000 – a diametric reversal in numbers. Channel 1 claimed 36,000 for the opposition, while the pro-Putin rally was estimated to draw 138,000. With the 15,000 anticipated, the organisers now face a criminal charge and a fine under the ‘disturbing the peace’ clause – which the prime minister told them on state TV not to worry about, as he is more than willing to chip in. Which, after the last year’s disclosures by Wikileaks which show Putin as the richest man in Europe with personal wealth of $38bn, he can clearly afford.

November 20^th, 2011 marked the first major public outcry against Putin when he was jeered at the ‘no rules’ heavyweight bout at the Olympic sport complex. The whistling and calls for the prime minister to resign were silenced on the state news report, but the video went viral on the internet. In Russia, where the electorate tends to be docile and apolitical, this was a worrying and promising sign. The world wide web is full of unpublishable calls for Putin to go, with websites such as protiv-putina.ru (against-Putin) and putinvotstavku.org (Putin resign) branding 156, 327 and 125,680 signatures respectively. Not an overwhelming number, perhaps, but the sentiment is telling: as Natalya from Pskov writes on protiv-putina.ru, ‘I wish Putin would live on my salary, 4,000 roubles!!!’ At least people were getting paid for protesting in Moscow, another commentator mourns.

Perhaps the bitterest blow to Putin’s image is the protest song by the Russian Union of the Airborne forces – an elite part of the military. Desantniki, as they are called in Russia, representing the veterans committee of the Airborne services, have in their own words become outraged by the lies and corruption of the government, saying that the ‘boys can’t take it anymore’. ‘Look us in the eye and close your mandate’ they sing. ‘You are just like me, a man, not a god, I am just like you, a man and not a fool’ is a line the prime minister hardly wants to hear. Especially given his projection of his tough man image – riding on horse back bare-chested, flying destroyers and attempting to bend an iron frying pan with his bare hands, this snub by the toughest military regiment in the Russian army, watched by hundreds of thousands on YouTube and receiving massive cheers from the protest crowd, is an indicator of just how deeply people’s disillusionment with the government has spread.

But the state media would not be state media if it did not try to brush over and under the carpet any visible inconvenience. In an unveiled attempt to both counter the protesters’ accusations and discredit the anti-Putin presence on the internet, the head of the investigative committee announced in a public statement on February 4^th that the ministry of internal affairs had conducted an investigation into the videos showing blatant proof of ballot stuffing abundant on YouTube and concluded that these videos carry ‘traces of editing’ and all originate from one server in the United States. The ministry is now determined to locate the producers of these libellous materials. One has to give credit to Channel 1 for admitting that YouTube offices, responsible for publishing the content, are located in California, thus explaining their US origin. But still. One only has to remember Putin’s bizarre statement that Hilary Clinton was largely responsible for inciting election protests in December to wonder just how many complete idiots the Russian government thinks make up its electorate.

If he is worried, however, Putin’s inscrutable face, made ever more enigmatic by botox, gives little away. ‘I don’t think he cares about what people think of him in the West’ his spokesman Dmitri Peskov has told the New Yorker. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ These cynical words describe the current political climate in Russia more eloquently than any lengthy political analysis. Russia’s position on democracy is clearly stated in Vitaly Churkin’s speech at the UN, where he claimed that ‘many influential members of the international community…undermined attempts at a political solution, calling for regime change, setting the opposition on the government, unashamedly provoking and fuelling armed resistance’. What in the words of William Hague ‘marked an hour of shame’, claiming more than 5,000 Syrian lives to date, Russia views as hypocritical pressure on the Assad regime. Understandably nervous about the Arab Spring, the Russian government’s attitude to civil disobedience is not promising for the protesters. His public snub of the white ribbons worn by the opposition as ‘unwrapped condoms’ is a shocking disrespect of his own people, who are tired of living in a country of outlandish corruption, repression and election fraud. One can only hope that the people, like the elderly lady who came wearing three layers of newspapers wrapped around her feet to protect her from the cold, will not give up any time soon.

Ba-Ba Boom

In the news...Georgia demolishes a World War II monument, killing two people.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have long ago transpired into theatrics. Since the 2008 armed conflict, which seemed more of a popularity contest for the attention of Western media, the two countries re-embarked on the tour of mutually-assured embarrassment. This came to a tragic high point on December 19, when a mother and her seven year-old daughter were killed in an explosion that demolished a World War II memorial.

The 150ft monument was erected in 1981 to commemorate lives lost in the war which is still referred to in Russia as ‘holy’. And no matter how hard President Saakashvili wants to sever ties with its neighbour, 700,000 Georgian lives lost in WWII sanctify it in the country’s collective memory. The two Soviet soldiers placing a flag over the fallen Reichstag were a Russian and a Georgian - more than a poster-image for the two nations. So while it is safe to assume that President Saakashvili was thinking when he signed the order to destroy the monument, it is not at all clear that it is safe to let him think at all.

It is difficult to say what benefits either side gains from the spat. The five-day war had left both Russia and Georgia discredited by bilateral lies and false accusations and the lack of a sober political agenda. But although Russia seems to have emerged from the incident if not with grace, then at least with public opinion back on its side, it has since been working hard to undermine itself. Firstly, it refused to remove the remainder of its troops from the contested region of South Ossetia, to which Georgia responded with the resumption of NATO training exercise. Then, in a move that defies all common sense and all sense of measure, Russia paid the Pacific nation of Nauru $50m in return for recognising Abkhazia. A move that makes George W.’s ‘coalition of the willing’ sound like a solid political force. According to The New York Times, ‘Nauru, the world’s smallest republic, has been desperate for income since its most important resource, phosphates formed by centuries of bird droppings, is nearly exhausted. The island has tried housing refugees for Australia and investing millions in a West End musical. (It bombed.)’ I have nothing more to add.

It is understandable that Saakashvili wanted to get back in the game, and he did that with a grand furore. It is worth a mention that initially the demolition was scheduled for December 21, which is Saakashvili’s birthday. A birthday he shares with one other infamous Georgian Joseph Stalin. Talking about being unlucky. A fact not lost on either the Russian and Georgian opposition media or the Kermlin, who are not shy to draw parallels. Even The Guardian carried an article claiming that Georgia’s first lady Sandra Roelofs stated in an interview that her husband ‘aspires to follow in the long tradition of strong Georgian leaders "like Stalin and Beria"’. This is of course mostly media-hype. But Stalin made history by not only annihilating millions of Russians, Georgians and everyone else who stood in his way, but also by erasing an enormous chunk of history by replacing churches with public pools. If Mr. Saakashvili wanted to avoid unpleasant parallels, he should have thought twice before asking for the dynamite.

What is strange is that the Western media paid absolutely no attention to the event. Only the BBC website carried a small story. Clearly, this mishap does not rival another blast in Baghdad; the politics behind it are much less explosive and thus not really newsworthy. But it is the absence of such small components of a complex mosaic that leads to erroneous preconceptions - just like it happened in August 2008 when the world immediately took Russia to be the bad guy. Conversely, if one turns to the Russian media, it will be rather difficult to distil an accurate portrait of the Georgian leader from the blood and oil-thirsty, lunatic images he is so often prescribed. In this reality-vacuum that has formed in the Russian-Georgian public space, the silence of the Western commentators seems unprofessional at best. Especially as the memory of a woman and a girl buried alive under a block of concrete seems to me to deserve more than a moment of silence.

Truth or Dare

In the news...Five British soldiers are killed by a rogue policeman in Helmand...An army psychiatrist kills 13 at Fort Hood military base in Texas.

On November 4, 2009 reports that five British soldiers were killed by an Afghan policeman at a military post in Helmand emerged, but did not hit the headlines. The next day, terror was brought a step closer to home when a major in the US Army shot 13 people dead at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. The first incident was treated by the media as yet another side-effect of war, while the second sparked a debate over national security, military strategy and, of course, religion. However, no one seemed to have tied the two events together and consider the underlying suggestion that we are not only fighting a distant threat, but an enemy from within.

Had these two shootings taken place at the same time, their co-ordination may have suggested a terrorist attack. But it appears safe to state that we are dealing with two isolated incidents of solitary madness. The British Army has classified the shooter as a ‘rogue’ policeman with ties to - it’s a shocker - the Taliban, while the press chooses phrases like ‘murderous rampage’ to designate the singular nature of brutality at Fort Hood. However, it is precisely the timing that makes the two shootings significant. Happening consecutively, they draw attention to the fact that the Allied effort in Iraq and now Afghanistan is beginning to lose sense for those who have enlisted to fight for it.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim born in Virginia, 39 year-old army psychiatrist. That description sounds like a bad joke. Had it not been for the horror of the pointless deaths, the headlines would no doubt be screaming with the likes of ‘Shrink Goes Postal’. The fact that the shooter was Muslim only adds fuel to the already-hot fire of paranoia and distrust - which is precisely what the American government is desperately trying to avoid. While President Obama praises the unity of purpose in the US Army and the whole nation, the mainstream press is hardlining the lone-shooter scenario. Unlikely as it is, America is still cautious about a Hollywood-remake of Kristallnacht, so everyone seems to be tiptoeing on broken glass.

The situation is beginning to look a little like a game of truth or dare, where the authorities can’t decide what would be worse for America’s wrecked nervous system - the fact that a home-grown jihadist was allowed to slip through to the heart of the US security like an unnoticed blood clot or that the stress of its aggressive foreign policy is ricocheting in its own back yard. Of course, it was only a matter of time until lines like ‘90% screwball with 10% jihadi flavour’ were going to surface, and not only from the far right. While the Army and the FBI are being very cautious in drawing premature conclusions, links to radical Islamists are being investigated. Not to consider a religious aspect would be utter folly. As would be hedging all your bets on it. This is a fine line through the psyche of an American Muslim officer - a cross-section that needs to be thoroughly understood, if we are to learn anything from this experience.

The US Army finds itself in a precarious situation when it comes to enlisting Muslims in the current climate. It is safe to assume that living under the shadow of George W.’s ‘crusade’ is not easy for any American Muslim. The New York Times carried an interesting piece on the problems faced by Muslim soldiers in the army, emphasising their ‘civil war’ state of mind. The US Army cannot afford not to enlist Muslims, as that would not only violate what America stands for, but create an army of Christian America. But at the same time, arming people against whose systems of belief a war is being waged is a clear risk. It is a choice between a country and an army you can trust, and the US government has its money on the state. Fort Hood was a necessary sacrifice for national unity. To date, out of 1.4 million active servicemen, about 3,500 official claim to be Muslim (unofficial estimates are around 20,000). Admittedly, you could bet on those odds.

The shootings come at an uncertain time of deliberation. Hamid Karzai had just won a shady election in Afghanistan and is now touring Europe to be lectured on the extent of his corruption. The Taliban is shelling Kabul, and the NATO generals cannot agree on a strategy. President Obama is under stress at home to formulate a clear Afghanistan policy - so that the people would know exactly what their young coutry-men and women are dying for, as opposed to just dying. The British government is suggesting, in half tones just now, talks with the Taliban - which can only mean one thing - and it is not victory.

Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die. First the British, then the Soviet, now American. Defying historical - but some might agree not common - sense, the Allied Forces have pried open Pandora’s Box and are fighting the consequences. But it was one thing when the enemy was a ‘haaji’ or a ‘raghead’. It becomes a whole different story when someone you trust, someone you train, someone you give a gun to fight for your cause turns around and machine-guns you down. It upturns the scales of justice, grief and blame - and not in our favour.

In the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, the US Army is reopening the grievances-box and psychiatric help for veterans is high on the agenda. Of course, the incident places a question mark over the condition of mental health specialists themselves. According to The New York Times, the Army is trying new methods for stress-management, including breathing techniques. So we should all take a deep breath and remember that as long as there is a war for hearts and minds going on, there will always be some we cannot convince. And then ask ourselves whether we should be trying to at all.